Will MLS Players Really Go On Strike?

Over the course of its more than 20-year existence, Major League Soccer—after numerous surveys and conversations with media partners—has determined that the main factor for league growth is star power.

This makes sense. People in our star-obsessed society want to see recognizable names. Sports are no different.

As a result, MLS has built player allocation and salary cap exemptions into its past collective bargaining agreements, the better to accommodate an influx of stars—often aged ones—into the league. Players such as David Beckham, Thierry Henry, and Clint Dempsey have been paid substantially more than their rank-and-file counterparts, and some of them also have enjoyed significant say over where they have ended up playing.

All of the above informs the curious and somewhat advantageous spot MLS finds itself in discussions with the the MLS Players Association over a new collective bargaining agreement as the two sides head toward a deadline of early March—the start of the new season, or perhaps the start of a possible strike.

The main tangling point is the fate of mid-level players, who are leading a push for free agency and increased revenue sharing. MLS claims that despite an increase in revenue due to new television deals and expansion fees, the league as whole is losing money and is not in a position to make drastic changes to its current labor structure.

Furthermore, the whole concept of free agency for the entire player pool goes against MLS's overall philosophy of focusing their spending on only the biggest names. In truth, there is little incentive for MLS to give all players free agency when stars already have the ability to move to bigger leagues in other parts of the world. For example, MLS did not block DeAndre Yedlin's move from the Seattle Sounders to the Tottenham Spurs of the English Premier League despite the player being identified as a budding superstar and a marketable name after an impressive showing at the World Cup.

Currently, MLS is the only major American sports league without true free agency. Since MLS has single entity status—although many critics debate whether the league can truly be legally defined as such—players sign a contract with the league, which, through various means, assigns them to teams.

Through the somewhat murky world of MLS allocation, however, star players can to some extent choose where they want to play. Several months ago, during MLS's re-branding ceremony, David Villa's agent, Víctor Oñante, told me that his client only agreed to sign with MLS on the condition that he play for NYCFC. The league agreed and that's how the former Barcelona star ended up in New York.

By definition, that is a form of free agency—no matter how the league tries to spin it.

Meanwhile, the mid-level domestic player—the very type of player that MLS has found to not be essential for growth—has the least amount of ability to move freely within the league. These players enter the league mostly through the college draft or are signed from team development academies, which means their rights are held by the league in perpetuity.

MLS's somewhat harsh characterization of this mid-level group of players, who form an important core of the current player pool, might seem unfair. But that's the type of frank assessment that gets made in discussions where possibly millions of dollars in future revenue are at stake. There is a bitter reality in that MLS wouldn't be where it is today without the domestic mid-level player, but that it won't get to where it wants to be if this type of player continues to fill up roster spots.

Not surprisingly, MLS is balking at a proposed free agent system that not only would undermine its current single entity status, but also would give the biggest financial boost to players whom league decision makers don't believe increase popularity or quality of play. The strongest bargaining position from the league's standpoint is that these mid-level players have minimal playing alternatives overseas. These are the players who most need a domestic league to exist in the first place.

So, for now, MLS is daring its players to strike.

Despite their seemingly weak position, the Players Association seems prepared to take that dare. In what appears to be a calculated press offensive, numerous players have voiced publicly their support for a possible work stoppage, and the union itself has given every indication that it will strike if its demands are not met.

"The short answer is that in any employment setting there are certain principles of fundamental fairness which if not addressed are worth striking over, and that the players are more united than ever and have prepared for this moment," said agent Richard Motzkin, whose Wasserman Media Group represents players such as Jozy Altidore and Jermaine Jones.

Tough talk. Only here's the problem facing the union: just how serious are the players as a whole about striking, given that the impetus to walk off the field comes from the type of player MLS ultimately doesn't consider a vital part of its future? Will the stars support the average player? Will the guys making the league minimum of $36,500, and who for the most part are playing for their careers, be willing to give up on the season to help out players making the league median salary of about $100,000?

Most importantly, are the mid-level players themselves really willing to jeopardize the future of the only league in the world where they can actually play?

"Players collectively realize that this is the only way to be taken seriously by ownership," agent Patrick McCabe said. "Is there true respect across the table? I'm not convinced of that at this point. The rank and file are the ones that need to see a CBA that will benefit them in both long- and short-term. Secondly, players know they have nothing to lose here and everything to gain if there was a strike. Many of these guys never dreamed of playing professional soccer for a living in this country and now that they are actually living the dream, the daily struggles of that reality have hit home."

There are many reasons to believe that the players are bluffing. The most important is money. The players can't outspend the owners in any type of labor dispute. While the union has saved up cash in preparation for a labor dispute, it's not likely it has the necessary funds to pay its entire membership for a prolonged period of time without outside help. The union could enlist the help of FIFPRO—the world's player union—which might be interested in challenging MLS's business structure. But that, in itself, would be a gamble.

Meanwhile, team owners so firmly believe that free agency would wreck the league's structure that they seem willing to find out if the players are bluffing. Many of the league's new owners invested in the league because of the single entity status and may scoff at dramatic changes to the system. The owners will not approve a system that has them openly bidding against each other for players, according to one source close to the situation.

Keeping players on strike would also be a huge task for the union. Player unity could be undercut by the more than 200 foreign born players—who last year accounted for nearly half of the league's players—who might not view this as a worthwhile fight. These players already have moved away from their home leagues, presumably because MLS offers a better deal. Frankly, would it really matter to a player from Colombia whether he was playing in Columbus or Portland if he was earning more money than they would be making at home?

Owners could first target these players to cross the picket line. Also, scab-busting repercussions from the union might not matter to these players, since they might not be planning to stay in the U.S. long-term, anyway.

"It would be tough to keep everyone together," said one insider.

A failed strike could have disastrous implications for the still relatively young union, not only during these discussions, but for future CBA talks. A busted union could take years to repair.

Nevertheless, the players still might be willing to risk it all.

Some insiders believe there is considerable pressure on union leaders Bob Foose and Jon Newman to get a favorable deal done, with the inference being that a massive upheaval in union leadership could result if members are unhappy with the new CBA.

There is no strong indication that support for Foose and Newman has waned during these negotiations, but that could quickly change with an unfavorable deal or with a long strike.

There has been a perception, whether true or not, that the agency formerly known as SportsNet, which later became part of the Wasserman Media Group, has had a heavy influence on union matters because they helped put Foose and Newman into power when the union was formed in 2003. In the early years of the union, SportsNet and the union even shared the same office.

The relationship between some non-Wasserman agents and the union could completely fall apart during these CBA discussions.

"That is the first time I have heard that comment in years and candidly, it is incredibly disrespectful to Jon and Bob in both their professional and personal capacities," said Motzkin, who is an executive vice president at Wasserman. "The MLSPU represents the players as a group, they have done a tremendous job for the players this past decade and everyone has a lot at stake in these CBA negotiations, on all sides. And, in short, I don't think the agents have any issues with Bob or Jon and I certainly believe they have the unequivocal support of their clients, the MLS players, which is what truly matters."

Neither Foose nor Newman returned a request for comment.

It seems almost inconceivable the union would be willing to face the acrimony that a strike could bring. More likely, the union will push for raising the salary cap and for an increase in the minimum salary, both of which seem attainable. By doing so, Foose and Newman could still claim a win that would keep them in power.

A true fight for free agency looms, but probably not now, not under these conditions, and not with this group of players.

That the very structure of professional soccer in the United States could be undone by mid-level players perhaps best illustrates the point MLS has been trying to make for months: despite numerous increases in revenue, the league is still in its infancy. A class of players still exists that the league deems replaceable, making the search for stars even more important for MLS's future.